Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2345
HOMEBREW Digest #2345 Thu 13 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:
Home Malting, part 2 ("Gregory, Guy J.")
My first No Sparge brew (Mike Spinelli)
HSA,White Label, Keg Purging ("David R. Burley")
Lagering in Cornies/ When to Rack (Rosenzweig,Steve)
Wyeast 2112 temperature (Charles Epp)
Skunked beer (John Wilkinson)
AOB Tax Forms (Jim Liddil)
Modified Decoction Step Mashing (Charles Rich)
Priming with Schnapps,Torinio syrups/Souring Beer (TheTHP)
Inverted carboy caps (Charles Rich)
When to transfer to the secondary ("Ken Rentz")
Brew-Ski '97 (Homebrewing Competition) (Jeff Handley & Gene Almquist)
Single malt is BORING (Charles Rich)
Botulism Solved (Cuchulain Libby)
Errors and bitterness (korz)
Lot's of sediment ("N.A. Campiglia III")
C. botulinum ("Patrick E. Humphrey")
Botulism Question (again) (Dean Larson)
Lallemand Yeasts/Aeration/Airstones/Wheeler's Porter (Rob Moline)
Canning wort (Harlan Bauer)
Making dark candi sugar (Jeremy Bergsman)
Botulism and TNCJHB (smurman)
Hops and Trub in Primary (David Root)
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: Tue, 11 Feb 97 07:56:00 PST
From: "Gregory, Guy J." <GGRE461@ecy.wa.gov>
Subject: Home Malting, part 2
Many thanks to David Burley, Richard Scholz, Ken Schwartz, Spencer Thomas,
and Jeff Renner for their very helpful comments. Based upon your knowledge,
and my guesses, here's what I'm going to do over the next week.
1. I'll measure the initial moisture content of the grain.
2. I'll grab another pile of grain, and malt it again, much like before,
except I'll probably let it go longer...!.
3. While I do that, I'm going to kiln the batch I have, crush better, and
try again.
4. I'll dry the next batch, using moisture content targets as a guide. If
my wife leaves town again, I'll try the clothes dryer.
5. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks of my "test mashes".
Thanks for all your help!
Guy Gregory
Lightning Creek Home Brewing
Pheasants and beer.....pheasants and beer....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 10:45:24 est
From: paa3983@dpsc.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: My first No Sparge brew
HBDers,
I'd first like to thank fellow HBDer Louis K. Bonham for motivating me to try
the "no sparge" technique. According to Louis, he's discussed the technique
with George Fix at a seminar and since then has dropped the sparge completely
from all
his brews.
My specs:
No Sparge Pale Ale
Start: 12/15/96 OG: 1.050 PPG: 24 FG:1.011
Bottled: 1/6/97
For 11 gallons:
16# Harrington pale
2.25# Munton and Fison pale
2# wheat malt
1# Munich 20L
1.5# Hugh Baird crystal 17L
( the above recipe is bumbed up 33% from my usual sparge recipe)
Mashed at 158F for 70 mins.
Mashed out w/ 2 gals. boiling water 15 min.
treated pseudo sparge water w/ lactic acid
2 oz. EKG flowers (5.1%) FWH
7 oz. EKG flowers (5.1%) 60 mins. 51 IBUs
2.5 oz. EKG flowers (5.1%) knock off
2 tsp IM (last 15 mins.)
Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley yeast slurry from 3/4 gallon starter split btwn, 2
carboys
Primed w/ 3/4 dextrose per 5.5 gals.
The No Sparge technique :
After mashout, recirc'd til clear then drained with ball valve wide open while
gently but quickly pouring pseudo sparge water ontop of grains from a gallon
pitcher. Stopped adding when approx. 10 gals. was collected in boil tun.
Topped off boil tun with additional 2 gals. of treated water to reach pre-boil
volume of 12 gals. For some reason I then took a gravity and to my surprise it
was 1.050 pre-boil! I wasn't expecting such a high extraction rate with not spa
rging. I added another gallon of water to bring it up to 13 gals. Then boiled
as usual.
The Bottom Line:
Is it maltier? Who knows? I've never made this exact same beer with a sparge
before. It sure is pretty good tasting though. It DEFINITELY saved me an hour
out of my brew day. To me that's worth the price of the extra grain right
there. This beer does have about the best head I've ever gotten. Could it be
from the no sparge or some other factors?
We'll be doing a 20+ gallon batch as soon as the weather warms up using the same
technique. Another great advantage to this is you don't need 3 tiers and having
a sparge tank way up in the air. The pseudo sparge water can be right at ground
level. Just scoop it up ontop elevated mash tun.
Mike Spinelli
Cherry Hill NJ
------------------------------
Date: 11 Feb 97 12:36:54 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: HSA,White Label, Keg Purging
Brewsters:
Neil Kirk asks:
> what about HSA when running off from the mash tun?
> Does it cause oxidation? Does it matter? How do we avoid it?
HSA occurs at all temperatures where you don't have something like an actively
growing yeast colony to absorb the oxygen. However, experience shows that below
about 70 or 80F, the rate of reaction slow enough that it is is not harmful if
you pitch your yeast quickly. In fact, at these low temperatures, aeration is
practiced to help the yeast colony. Many reaction rates approximately double for
every 10C temperature rise. So from 20C to 100C the reaction rate is
2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2 = 256 times faster and maybe more. So keep it cool. In routing
it from the mash tun through the lauter tun and to the boiler, avoid splashing,
use hoses from the lauter to the mashtun and once the heavy foam stage of the
boil has passed, partially cover your boiler to provide a positive pressure
sweeping air away from the wort's surface. Chill the wort in the boiler or
remove it via siphon to a counter current chiller. Charlie Papazian's picture
in his Joy of Home Brewing book p. 41 showing him pouring hot wort through a
sieve into the fermentation vessel has probably ruined more beer than all his
other activities to promote and make good beer. In addition, the subtitle says
".... Here the hot boilng wort is poured into cold water...." NO, NO, NO,
DON'T DO IT!!!!
Thanks for the information on White Shield/Label. When I was drinking this two
and half decades ago, it must have been the White Shield. No one dreamed of
making or could have sold a low alcohol beer in those days. Who makes the White
Label?
- ----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sturman asks about the purging techniques of a mirco that produces a keg
conditioned beer. His technique of filling, purging by bubbling CO2 in through
the liquid leg sounds OK to me since he has active yeast there in the beer for
keg conditioning. Although I purge the keg before adding beer that is yeast
free, I use this technique with my Cornies to purge and to seal the o-ring
before I naturally condition the beer in the keg. Sometimes if I am kegging a
sensitive beer like a lager, I purge the keg also.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:49:06 PST
From: Steve_Rosenzweig@wb.xerox.com (Rosenzweig,Steve)
Subject: Lagering in Cornies/ When to Rack
Huzzah to all involved in the resurrection of the HBD - I raise my
glass in your honor!
********************
In 2341 Rich Hampo asks about Lagering in Cornies:
You can attach an airlock to a corny keg. You will need two different
diameter short pieces (2") of plastic hose, a small (#5 ?) rubber
stopper, and an airlock. Of course I don't remember the exact sizes
of the hoses, but you'll get the idea and can take it from here.
Take the gas fitting off the tank, put a short piece of hose over the
outside threaded part of the fitting (this should be a tight enough
fit so as not to leak - if you suspect a problem, use teflon tape on
the threads of the opening), put a short piece of smaller diameter
hose inside of the larger hose - again tight fit is necessary. Put
the stopper in the end of the smaller hose and attach the airlock to
the stopper. I used this setup with great success last year, and will
again as I move into my lagering phase this year.
Added bonus: a deep well spark plug socket will fit the fittings on
pin-lock style cornies - use a grinder, hacksaw, or file to carve out
about 1/8" at the ends of each arm of the star pattern inside the
socket so that it will fit either the gas or the liquid fitting for
easy tightening/loosening!
********************
In 2342 Dave Root asks when to rack:
Two suggestions: rack after a week and use the washing techniques as
described in The Brewery's technical library to separate the good
yeasties from the trub in the primary, or rack and only harvest the
yeast from the secondary after another week, or, I guess a third
choice would be to do both - which would yield you more yeast to use
in a later brew. I am planning on doing just this with W2308 in a
Helles, Oktoberfest, and finally a Bock over the next six or eight weeks.
********************
Brew On!
PZ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:32:23 -0600
From: Charles Epp <chuckepp@ukans.edu>
Subject: Wyeast 2112 temperature
There was a question recently regarding fermentation temperatures for
Wyeast 2112 (California Common). I'm writing just to report another
data point. Although Wyeast reports that the yeast performs best
between 58-62 F, I recently fermented a doppelbock with that yeast at
temperatures of 45-50 F (and at one point the temp. dropped to 37 for
several days due to a cold snap). The yeast worked fine at those
temperatures and produced a wonderfully clean, malty beer. 2112 seems
to be quite hardy and versatile. (I know, I know, wrong yeast for a
doppelbock -- but it worked well and the product is great.)
Chuck
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 12:34:05 CST
From: jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Skunked beer
In HBD #2341 Dennis Waltman writes:
>I've brewed outside in bright sunlight and poured cooled wort into the
>carboy outside, and shook to aerate, also outside in the sun (before I
>knew better) and the beer didn't skunk.
I have had the same experience. I usually try to avoid exposing my beer or
wort to too much light, especially sunlight, but have had a few lapses.
I brewed a batch last July outside in the bright Texas sun, draining both the
mash tun and kettle through clear vinyl tubing and noticed no ill effects.
Frequently I have had a clear glass of beer outside in the sun for some time
with no noticeable (to me) effect on the taste or aroma. Am I peculiarly
insensitive to skunkiness or just lucky? My experience indicates skunking may
be a sometime thing rather than a sure one. Besides, almost every beer store
I go into has their beer stored in well lighted areas. I know some (Miller,
for example) use special hop extracts which are supposed to avoid skunking
but what of the rest? Has this danger been exaggerated? Are we scaring
ourselves to death?
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:48:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL@AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: AOB Tax Forms
I got the AOB 990 froms from the IRS. Relax don't worry make $100,000 a year.
Anyone got server spce to put these up for public viewing? There are 35 pages.
A chance to see how the AOB is using the money from the AHA<IBS and GABF.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:52:25 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR@SAROS.COM>
Subject: Modified Decoction Step Mashing
In HBD #2343 Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com> describes his modified
decoction step mashing (MSDM) technique. This is similiar to my MDSM
but the difference is that I don't try to pull a fraction which when
added back at boiling temps will take the whole mash to the next step.
After a protein rest at about 128-130F I take the mash to 140 while my
decoc cooks. For a very dry beer, I pull a pretty generous fraction, up
to about 4 gals of stiff mash, rest it at 156-158 for alpha conversion,
then boil that for twenty to thirty minutes so it develops a good
nutty, cooked flavor. This developes a lot of large sugars that
beta-amalase can reduce later, gelatinizes the starch, and of course
tastes good. I use an immersion chiller to cool the grain fraction to
my next target temp and then add it back. I used to put my my decoc
kettle in a tub of cold water to cool, and that works fine too.
This way, after adding back I'm guaranteed I won't overshoot my rest
temps and I can decoc a big fraction. I heat to the next step and rest,
usually at 148 to 152 for forty minutes depending on desired profile.
148 v/dry alcoholic 152 is more flavorful but still dry. Mashout and
you're done. I've done two and three step decocs but frankly one step
goes so far toward what I expect from a decoc that I rarely do even two
anymore.
I consider a decoction mash as the best way to develop the largest
amount of fermentable simple sugars since you get abundant gelatinized
starch, and the results of an alpha-amalase rest available to
beta-amylase enzymes in rest temperatures that won't denature them.
I like this method too because the decoc sizes aren't throttled by
temperature-to-next-rest considerations, you just take a bunch and do
it. Also, no enymes are wasted before getting to do their thing.
This method can be abused; there is a malicious, no-style, party-lager I
make like this which has a big body, just-threshold diacetyl flavor (
this helps with some perceived sweetness), and lots of hops. It's very
drinkable, gulpable, but the body masks a tremendous alcoholic punch.
Take this to a party at someone else's house, things can get out of hand
like the opening scene from Das Boot. Bottle or keg carefully (small
tipples), it's deceptively potent.
BTW I am more of a style conscious brewer than the above might suggest.
..And a happy Nazdrowie to you too, Paul
Cheers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:03:41 -0500 (EST)
From: TheTHP@aol.com
Subject: Priming with Schnapps,Torinio syrups/Souring Beer
Dear HBD chemists, mathamajicians and sugar extrodinares,
After much online research and feeble responses, I'd Like to ask the
knowledgeable masses about how much fermentable sugar is in Schnapps and
Torani syrups. My overall attempt is to "Prime" with Torani Kiwi syrup for my
Kiwi Pale Ale ie. Green Beer for St. Pattys day that is gurgling happily in
the basement next to the furnace (8lbs pale,4oz 50l crystal, 4.5oz wheat,8.8
HBU EKGoldings)....
>From the information on the bottle I submit the following:
750 ml bottle. Serving size 1 oz or 30 ml. 25.4 servings per bottle.
75 calories per serving
Cal from fat 3
fat 0.3 mg
sodium 3 mg
Total Carbohydrates 19 g
Sugar 116? (i was in a hurry, how about 16?)
Protein 0g
Sorry about the ## fudge on the sugar, I realize that may make it a little
difficult.
Im a little reluctant to add the whole bottle, Im aiming for a "Mild Kiwi"
Flavor not a wine cooler beer hybrid. Whats the math behind figuring out how
much syrup I want to flavor it with () and how much additional dextrose I
might have to add to prime? Much help would be very appreciated!
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewery
Frog! (Not Bass;-) Pale Ale and Poison Frog Super Bowl Pilsner on tap!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:04:17 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR@SAROS.COM>
Subject: Inverted carboy caps
In HBD #2343 C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net> writes:
> If I was going to do it again, I'd use a 6.7 gal. carboy and buy the
> Brewcap since it is fairly widely used, is relatively inexpensive and
> has a relatively large blowoff tube.
The 6.8 gal carboy has a different sized mouth than a 5 gal carboy.
It's smaller, so the Brewcap doesn't fit snuggly. You might still be
able to clamp it in place. But check it out first.
Cheers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:30:50 -800
From: "Ken Rentz" <rentzk@wssi.com>
Subject: When to transfer to the secondary
I was the lucky recipient of a second fermentor awhile back and currently have
a nice porter working away in it. Since this new fermentor is plastic, I'm
planning on transfering it over to my glass carboy to complete fermentation.
The only question I have, which never seems to be touched upon is, whether
there an optimal time to do this? Too early, and I would think that you would
end up with almost as much sediment as if you had just left it in the primary,
too late and why bother. Is there any thing I should look for, or should I
just relax and concentrating on drinking up by X-Mas ale?
- --
Ken Rentz Wise Software Solutions, Inc.
Mailto:rentzk@wssi.com BBS (503) 526-0612
CompuServe 74151,677 FAX (503) 520-1759
http://www.gerbtool.com Phone (503) 626-7800
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:48:59 -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: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:44:15 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR@saros.com>
Subject: Single malt is BORING
Good morning all,
In HBD #2343 Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com> writes:
> Well brewed beer whether it has one malt or ten is not boring
Here Here! I'd rather go with than without.
> I do think however that you can brew just about any classic style
> with 3 different malts or less.
When you brew with a single or few malts you've left your beer flavor
decisions to your maltster. If a stout or ESB tastes nuttier, more
round with some aromatic additions, do it. You can make that beer taste
as good as you can imagine.
In a cooking class once, the chef told us to always (BTW I tend toward
hyperbole) use two or more types of an ingredient when possible. Add a
little parmesan to that cheddar in your omelet, use a couple of types of
lettuce etc. The dish just gains in depth. I do this with malt and
hopping and agree it works great. Now, that said, I disclaim by
admitting to keeping my pilsners to a simpler grain bill - but I can
hardly stand to do that.
> A lot of great music has only one note at a time.
an accented note swelling from a background of muted sounds or
intermediate hush is magnificent, that's the kind of flavor profile I
advocate too. A nice edgy charred note supported by a round bicuity
background in a stout, yum, that just says so much about grain. One
malting type doesn't give the whole spectrum of grain flavors. But if
you elevate a particular flavor note with other interesting flavors
present, you've made an interesting and big statement, and it's easily
done with a few ounces of aromatic or adjunct grains.
I shoulda stuck to painting metaphors anyway.
Cheers
Charles Rich
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:28:57 -0600
From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan@connecti.com>
Subject: Botulism Solved
Greetings All,
I quote from a syndicated columnist in today's San Antonio Express News.
"British lab scientists cultivated bacteria colonies of the kind most
associated with food poisoning. Then poured one alcoholic beverage after
another over samplings of each. To learn most liqours had little effect,
but wine killed almost all bacteria."
So then, do we mash, sparge, boil, or bottle it in our beer?
Cuchulain
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:03:28 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Errors and bitterness
Dave writes:
>In trying to unweave this magnesium bitterness/water/beer thread I quoted Brew
>Chem 101's author, Dr. Jansen, saying excess magnesium could result in
>bitterness and sulfate gave a fullness and dryness. The author is a PhD
>bio-chemist and a certified judge.
>
>AlK says in response to this:
>
>> I have read some things in HBD quoted from that book in the past, but cannot
>> find them because I can't reach Spencer's search engine and The Brewery's
>> HBD search engine rejects "Brew Chem 101." I recall that there was at least
>> one glaring error posted that referenced that book.
>
>Why is it you always try to belittle an author's published works and ignore a
>quotation of them which is in contention with your point by saying "I found an
>error in there"? It is logical non-sense to say "there is an error in that book
>therefore everything is incorrect."
Spencer helped me get to the HBD search engine and I found the error
referenced to Brew Chem 101:
Anton had written:
>Sunday I racked to secondary and
>gravity was 1.015 (O.G. was 1.060) but the stuff smelled like
>grapefruit. I read in 'Brew Chem 101' that this could be from
>pitching too much yeast. Should I have made a starter from
>the yeast I got instead of dumping in about 1/2 cup of pure
>yeast ?
Okay, so when I read that an author has written that overpitching can
cause a grapefruit aroma, I no longer can fully trust the rest of what
they write. I didn't recall the exact error (although I tried to
get a copy of it), I remembered that it was outrageous enough for me
to question this author's credibility. My point was basically, that
what you quoted is contrary to what I believe and for me to simply
say "is so" and you to say "is not" doesn't do the argument any good.
Pointing out that this author is prone to errors was why I mentioned
it.
>I am sure all books contain errors. I'm sure any author of these hobby books
>would be shocked to find his works in the Lake MIchigan Scrolls two thousand
>years from now. As you know, even translations of the Bible are in contention
>for contextual and translation errors and even content. I find errors
>extremely
>annoying and
> if there are too many, the author does lose his credibility for good
>authorship
>and it is correct to doubt his expertise at least to write in a clear and
>non-confusing manner. BUT it does not mean Everything in the book is incorrect.
>I remember you saying you had gone through one author's book ( was it Noonan's
>first?) and provided the editor with a list of errors. Maybe you should
>publish
>this here or at the Brewery or somewhere. That would be a useful activity we
>all
>could benefit from. Other readers could also add their list as they read these
>books.
Another brilliant idea, but I'm way ahead of you. I've got my own website
under construction and this had already been planned. For the last five
years, I've been marking-up and correcting all my homebrewing texts. What
remains is to html-ise it all. For what it's worth, I eagerly read Noonan's
new book cover-to-cover. At first I was pretty ticked-off that I wasn't
mentioned in the acknowlegements having spent 40 hours correcting his errors
and *donating* the corrections to the publisher. Within the first 20 pages
I could see that Noonan never saw my corrections.
I should have the website up-and-running in a month or two. I plan to have
photos from brewery tours, tasting notes on commercial beers, and many more
beer-related things. Perhaps I'll even scan-in actual pages from my
brewing log (ha! assuming you can read my handwriting). I've got Jean-
Pierre Van Roy (Cantillon) and Guido DeBelder (Drie Fonteinen) saying
"Gueuze" on videotape, so those of you who want to hear the French
(Bruxellois, actually) and Flemish pronounciations will be able to download
.wav files from two reliable sources...
>To settle the issue at hand, I suggest a number of us HBDers in our homes and
>club meetings take a Budweiser (since its quality is about as close to standard
>as we can get) and add Epsom Salts and other salts at various levels and
>compare
>the bitterness to see what the onset of bitterness perception induced by the
>salt is. Do the same experiment with water. Any thoughts as to protocol?
>Order,
>randomness, etc.
Yes, but do the same with gypsum and Bud too. I contend that it's the suphate
and not the MgSO4 that causes the increase in bitterness. Furthermore, as
AJ pointed out and my gypsum-in-Pilsner-Urquell experiment showed, the reaction
may require heat to drive it (i.e. the sulphate makes more of a difference
when it's in the boil).
>AlK said:
>
>" My whole point is that just like
>CALCIUM sulphate increases the bitterness of beer and as sulphuric acid
>increases the bitterness of beer, so will MgSO4, but by the action of the
>sulphate on the *perceived* bitterness of the beer. Suphates accentuate
>the bitterness of the hops! MgSO4 *is* bitter, but it is not bitter
>*enough* to change the bitterness of the beer if it didn't have any
>hops in it!"
>
>We agree magnesium sulfate is bitter, since it is a mineral bitterness
>standard.
>The point you made some days ago and appear to be making here was that
>magnesium
>ion itself was not bitter, rather it was *just* the sulfate. Do you still
>support that? Personally, I would like this to be the case since it supports my
>theory of the cause of some of the primitive tastes, but the literature I read
>doesn't support it.
>
>Sulfuric acid by itself is not bitter. All acids are sour. Mineral bitterness (
>due to the hydroxide ion) and sourness ( due to the hydrogen ion) are opposites
>and never occur together. It is a chemical impossibility.
You are misinterpreting my assertion. I'm *not* saying that suphate ions are
bitter. Nor am I saying that magnesium ions are. I'm saying that:
* we agree that MgSO4 is bitter,
* we disagree that MgSO4 *directly* affects the bitterness of the beer (I
say that *any* source of sulphate will react *somehow* with the *existing*
*hop* bitterness and cause the beer to be *perceived* as more bitter --
this is why MgSO4 *OR* CaSO4 will be "more bitter" in beer than in water!).
More specifically (and this is a new point that I have yet to introduce
into this discussion), sulphate ions in the brewing water cause the
bitterness to *linger* into the finish. Therefore, a beer that is made
from medium-sulphate water (such as DAB) will have a bitterness that lingers
into the finish, whereas a beer made from low-sulphate water (like Pilsner
Urquell) will have a bitterness that ends abruptly (*before* the malt does)
and does not linger into the finish. Compare DAB (32 IBUs) with PU (41 IBUs).
There are even more intense examples (like Burton Bridge Bitter, which is
made from 500+ ppm SO4 water as opposed to 120 ppm SO4 water used for DAB)
but they are not available in the US. For the record, DAB's water only has
40 ppm of Mg. I'm going to try and stop at the liquor store tonight and
see if I can find a pale, nationally-available beer with more sulphate in
it. Maybe Bass, Whitbread, or Boddingtons, but I think they tone-down the
sulphate for export. We'll see...
I really don't enjoy argueing with you Dave. I'd much rather agree on
everything, but it seems that most often you misinterpret my assertions
and no matter how many ways I try to rephrase my point, you don't seem
to get it. Could someone else perhaps try to paraphrase my point?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:43:32 -0600
From: "N.A. Campiglia III" <spitdrvr@camalott.com>
Subject: Lot's of sediment
I just finished making a DUNKEL WEIZEN. I noticed a lot of sediment in the
bottom of the carboy. It's to soon to be yeast and I used hop bags and
grain bags. I strained the wort into the carboy and discarded any trub I
caught in the strainer.
I used 1 full pound of flaked wheat, could this be the sediment? I so, how?
As stated, I used a strainer and grain bags.
Please HELP!!!
"Worried and Having a Homebrew"
Nick
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
N. Campiglia
spitdrvr@camalott.com
Abilene, Texas
'74 Spitfire, '76 Spitfire
Home Brew GuRu Wanna Be!!
"Speed Costs, How fast do you want to go??"
"To Brew or Not To Brew, What was the Question?"
" If you're gonna be dumb...... You better be tough "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:08:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Patrick E. Humphrey" <HUMPHREY.PATRICK@igate.pprd.abbott.com>
Subject: C. botulinum
Hi all,
I just thought it would be nice to post some facts about the botulism toxin
from my Microbiology tome. The excerpts are from "Microbiology, B.D.
Davis, R. Dulbecco, H.N. Eisen and H.S. Ginsberg, 3rd Ed. 1980." A little
old but still very useful.
Here are some passages of text...
"Most clostridia produce large amounts of gas (mainly Carbon dioxide and
Hydrogen)."
Keep this in mind when canning. If the lid is buldging after a few weeks
in the can, be careful.
"...other potent protein exotoxins are botulinum toxins and tetnus toxin."
The organism that produces the tetnus toxin is Clostridium tetani. Since
these toxins are proteins they can be easily degraded.
More facts...
"The spores of C. botulinum are relatively heat-resistant, and pressure
sterilization is necessary to ensure their destruction. Effective
sterilization is routine in the canning industry; home-canned foods,
especially "low-acid" vegtables (pH above 4.5), have been the source of
outbreaks of botulism in this country. In contrast to the spores,
botulinum toxin is relatively heat-labile, being completely inactivated in
10 minutes at 100 deg. C; hence boiling just prior to ingestion renders
home-canned vegetables or processed fish safe. Care should be exercised in
handling suspect food samples... since the toxin may be absorbed from fresh
wounds and mucosal surfaces."
"C. botulinum is widely distributed in soil, in the silt of lake and pond
bottoms, and on vegetation; hence the intestinal contents of mammals,
birds, and fish may occasionally contain these organisms."
"[The toxins produced by C. botulinum] are the most powerful biologic
toxins known; 1 ug [microgram] contains 200,000 minimal leathal doses (MLD)
for a mouse, and is nearly a lethal dose for man."
C. botulinum can produce more than one type of botulinum toxin. Needless
to say, the toxins produced by C. botulinum can be deadly. Simple
procedures can be used to denature the toxin prior to using the previously
canned wort. Simply heating the wort for 10 min. at boiling will take care
of it.
I don't mean to be an alarmist about this topic because the chance that you
will have a problem with botulism is minimal if proper canning and usage
procedures are followed.
One more passage...
"From 1970 to 1975 there were 68 outbreaks (152 cases) of food-borne
botulism in the United States."
I realize the data is out of date but it shows how rare these cases are.
Prost!
Pat Humphrey
Lindenhurst, IL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:46:35 -0800
From: Dean Larson <Dean.Larson@gonzaga.edu>
Subject: Botulism Question (again)
I hate to beat this whole botulism thing to death, but a question was
asked a while ago (can't remember by who) that was never really
answered, so I thought I'd attempt to ask it again with a bit of
re-wording. Several folks have brought up the old "no known human
pathogens in beer" adage and have been informed that we're not talking
about beer, we're talking about wort. Granted. But the only reason
I can wort is to make yeast starters. If I throw some yeast into
some canned wort to make a starter, the yeast turns that wort into
beer. So the question is if I pitch wort that is infected with
botulism toxin with yeast, what happens? Does the yeast fail to
convert this wort to beer? If the yeast does convert this wort to
beer, does this beer contain no known human pathogens? That is, does
the fermentation process and/or its by products destroy the botulism
toxin that was originally present in the wort?
Happy Brewing!
Dean Larson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:09:05 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Lallemand Yeasts/Aeration/Airstones/Wheeler's Porter
The Jethro Gump Report
>From: danmcc@umich.edu (Daniel S. McConnell/DSMBook)
>Subject: Lallemand yeast
>I am rather surprised that EC leaves the bulk of the sugars behind, but hey,
>I'm learning too. Did Gordon mention which sugars EC won't use?
Sorry about the confusion here...I spoke to Gordon about yeasts
before I brewed my 1st B-w, and then he referred me to Clayton Cone for the
more specific info....off the top of his head he said that it was
maltotriose that would not ferment with the EC-1118 strain. He is working on
getting the info on an API kit from England...apparently this contains
charts of sugar utilization by various yeasts. BTW, Mr. Cone is soon going
to be teaching for the American Institute of Brewing, having retired as a
microbiologist for Lallemand. He also highly recommended the papers written
by Mike Ingledew, of the Uni of Saskatchewan (sp?) on high gravity brewing.
Further, in future for barleywines, I will follow his recommendation to use
3 or 4 times as much yeast nutrient as for lesser beers.
Aeration....
Mr. Cone further discussed my re-constitution and attemperation
proceedures, and advised that Lallemand yeasts come "charged" (my term),
with a high level of fatty acid sterols, and while aeration is recommended
prior to pitching, it is a good idea to give more O2 at the 12th hour post
pitching. It seems that the yeast are able to go through several generations
of reproduction before they consume the sterols and a dose of O2 at this
stage is beneficial.
Airstones...
I spoke with my supplier today, and he is happy to sell his
airstones to homebrewers. They are 15 micon, sintered steel, stainless, and
I am very happy with them. $ 28 US, and $ 4 US for shipping....ask for the 3
inch airstone, 15 micron...Charles McElevey, 4341 SW Concord St, Seattle,
Washington, 98136.
Wheeler on Porter...
Received a large e-mail from Graham (sorry for mis-spelling his name
previously) Wheeler containing referenced articles on his theory of porter.
Some of it is from the article posted here sometime ago, most of it is not
(the previous posting was an excerpt for a Brit Brew mag)....being quite
lengthy, I wish to offer it to folks that e-mail me for it...if response is
great enough, it will be posted, in segments, on HBD..(Yes, he has given his
permission for this to be used as I see fit. So no moaning 'bout bloody
copyrights!)
After reading this, I am absolutely, positively sold on his arguments.
Jethro (Humourless Bastard) Gump
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company,
Manhattan, Kansas.
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:31:23 -0600
From: blacksab@midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Canning wort
Louis Gordon asks:
>OK, I believe you that I need to pressure can my wort for yeast starters
>if I am going to do it in advance. I have pressure canned my wort in the
>past. The problem is that (I assume since I cannot see it) the wort foams
>up in the mason jars and most of it winds up in the canning pot. Does
>this leave us with only making the wort when ready to use or is there a
>way to can without foaming.
This has not been my experience!
Every once in a while, I brew up 5-gal of starter and can it in 1-qt mason
jars. I fill the jars to the bottom of the threads, cap them loosely, place
them in a pressure cooker with an inch or two of water in the bottom, lock
the lid down, and raise the heat. When steam begins to escape from the
petcock, I allow the steam to escape for a full 10-min., then close the
petcock and allow the pressure to build to 15-lbs, and hold it there for
20-min. At that point, I turn off the heat, and allow the pressure to
gradually fall to 0-lbs, WITHOUT opening the petcock. Then I open the
petcock, the lid, and, with insulated rubber gloves, remove the hot jars,
tighten the lids and place them in a safe place to cool.
A good idea I read in Pierre Rajotte's book *First Steps in Yeast Culturing*
is to reuse juice and baby-food jars. The advantage of using them is that
they can be filled part way, sterilized, and the air as well as the wort is
sterile. Then when I want to step up, I simply pull a jar off the shelf with
the appropriate quantity of wort, shake vigorously to aerate, open the lid
and pour in the yeast. Sterile wort AND sterile aeration.
For my various step cultures, here is what I keep on hand in the order that
they're used in stepping up from a loop-full of yeast from a slant:
- --10-mL wort in a 30-mL flat-bottomed culture tube
- --30-mL wort in a 100-mL baby juice jar
- --120-mL wort in a 300-mL juice jar
- --450-mL wort in a 1000-mL apple juice jar
Two additional notes:
First, I always pressure cook the wort twice, once in a mason jar for bulk
storage and to drop ALL the sediment; and then I decant into the various
sized recipients enumerated above and pressure cook again. The advantage of
this method (also described in Rajotte) is absolutely trub-free starters.
Second, the lids WILL seal. Even though they're not designed for reuse, the
lids will work a second and third time, and probably more. If a jar doesn't
seal, simply use that starter first and discard the lid.
And now for a question--Wouldn't botulism cause the seal of a mason jar to
fail and so, alert you to an infection?
Harlan
*********************************************************************
* *
* Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can *
* Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. *
* <blacksab@midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman *
* *
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:48:19 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: Making dark candi sugar
Al asks if anyone has had any luck making dark candi sugar
(i.e. carmelizing sugar) and getting it out of the pan.
The first time I did this I carmelized more than I needed,
let it cool, and chipped it out of the pan. I then weighed
out what I needed.
The second time I carefully added water (slowly!!!!!!!!) to
the sugar when it reached the desired color/odor. It will
spatter at first if you add the water too fast, but once it
cools off a bit you can stir in the water and quickly convert
it to a thin, easily managed syrup.
The last two times I have made the sugar in my brewpot the
night before, let it cool, and added warm water. Letting
this sit overnight, the carmelized sugar dissolves and you're
ready to go the next day. Just lauter into the syrup, or
add more water and extract.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:04:21 -0800
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: Botulism and TNCJHB
Boy do I feel like I let Pandora out of the box.
I dug out my copy of Papazian's TNCJHB tonight, and looked at his
recommended procedure for storing wort (page 276). In my opinion (and
it's only my opinion), his procedure is unsafe for preparing wort for
starters. His method is to basically boil up a hopped batch of DME
wort, add it to sanitized bottles, and then cap the bottles and
refrigerate.
I think this is unsafe for many reasons.
The pH of the hopped wort is unknown. It is unlikely that it is
significantly below 4.5. Given this acid content, the only way to
destroy the botulism spores is to heat them above 240F. Papazian's
recommendation to simply boil the wort will not achieve 240F, and will
not destroy the spores. Since the boiled wort is directly poured into
the bottles and then capped, it will develop a partial vacuum. These
conditions are ideal for the botulism spores to develop their deadly
toxin. If the toxin does develop, the only way to destroy it is to
boil it at 212F or above. Papazian does not recommend re-boiling the
stored wort, but rather says the yeast should be added directly.
There is really no justification for storing batches in this way given
that it only takes about one hour to boil and cool a fresh batch when
making the low volumes for a starter (that's how I do it).
I'm considering writing an article to Zymurgy asking for a
clarification or justification for Charlie's method. It sounds to me
like one of the many dangerous folklore methods that dominate home
preserving. The only saving grace I can see is that the addition of a
significant amount of hops to a small volume of wort may produce a
high acid environment. In that is the case it should be clearly noted
in the book what the importance of the hops is for properly storing
the wort.
The facts are that the botulism spore cannot be killed except by
heating it above 240F. A strong acid environment will inhibit the
spores from producing the toxin. The spores will also only produce
the toxin in an anaerobic environment (lack of air). If the toxin is
present, it must be killed by raising the temperature above 212F. One
teaspoon of botulism toxin is capable of killing hundreds of thousands
of people.
Botulism poisoning is still a very real danger. I'm including a
pointer to a story about a 60 year old grandmother who almost died
from canning carrots. She is still barely more than a vegetable
herself. She had prepared her home canned vegetables the same way for
more than 40 years. Botulism does not care how old you are, or how
many times you've "never had a problem". See
http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/6305 for the story.
SM
P.S. I know some of you are probably sick of hearing about this, but
there seems to still be a lot of confusion.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 03:35:30 -0500
From: David Root <droot@concentric.net>
Subject: Hops and Trub in Primary
So I screwed up. I dumped the hops, and trub in the primary with
a 2 to 3 litre starter fo Wyeast 2206 Bavarian Lager yest. I Posted the
question on friday night. It was in Tuesdays Digest, so the responses were
a little late. I took the advice and racked to a secondary today (Tuesday).
The SG was 1.020. The ferment was not quite done. The beer was cloudy and
I assume has enough yeast in it for another batch. When I am ready to brew
my next batch I will rack again and use the yeast. Hope this works.
When I raacked to the secondary, I used a copper choerboy for the
first time. The fermenter was almost dry. This worked great because I had
3 ounces of Saaz leaf hops in the fermenter. This took up about a gallon
of space in the bucket. They were well drained. If nothing else I learned
that the choreboy is the best way to transfer to the secondary.
Thanks to the people that responded (2) The beer tasted pretty good at racking
time and I think that nothing was lost . Glad to have the digest back.
David Root Lockport NY droot@concentric.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2345, 02/13/97
*************************************
-------
