Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2359
HOMEBREW Digest #2359 Wed 26 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:
Italian Beer Scene (KennyEddy)
Fw: The Jethro Gump Report..Brewery Legalities ("Rob Moline")
Little Apple and BT (kathy)
Dropping vs Secondary Fermentation (Graham Stone)
lists (khuri1018)
Trip (UTC +01:00)" <d_peters@e-mail.com>
Re: Flaming / Yow Yowing / Pissing and Moaning (John Sullivan)
Dangers of flying (Bill Giffin)
vigorous evaporation ("Robert DeNeefe")
Counterflow chiller and trub removal / warming beer (George De Piro)
Superior Brewing Co. Ontario Canada (Steven Ketcham)
Re: building a RIMS heating chamber (Dion Hollenbeck)
Re: Counterflow chiller, cold brewak (Oliver Weatherbee)
Re: Late starting Wyeast ("Jeff Spencer")
BIERRE DE GARDE (HOMEBRE973)
Idophor and stainless steel (Ian Smith)
Craft Beer Institute Seminar ("Rob Moline")
re: brian deck: yeast culture...(February 22, 1997) (Rae Christopher J)
yeast culture conditions... (benbowj)
Subject: AHA/AOB: the $100,000 Question (RANDY ERICKSON)
Re: Composition of extract from steeped versus mashed grains (korz)
co2 pressure in primary ("Herb B Tuten")
Recipe exchange (lheavner)
Re: Skunkiness (korz)
Stale Beer and Summer Brewing ("Rene Derieux")
CO2 recycling/ESBs/AOB (Jim Busch)
dirty beer lines (Jeff Sturman)
Conspiracies (nkanous)
Scottish Ales (keithzim)
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: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:23:59 -0500 (EST)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Italian Beer Scene
Just returned from a 10-day tour of Italy & Greece with a high school group
(yikes!), during which I had only minimum opportunity to sample the beer
scene. I did find that Heineken was invariably fresh and yummy -- the only
time I had ever tasted what it presumedly is "supposed to" taste like, not
skunky as we usually get it here in the US. Ditto for Grolsch and other
EuroLagers.
My limited experience with the Italian beer availability was this. Due to
time and mobility limitations I was restricted to beers sold in "bars"
(typically specializing in ice cream and coffee, with a cooler full of
bottled beers off to the side) and an occasional liquor store. At first I
was drooling at the variety of labels indicating fine European offerings, but
after reading a couple labels, I found that practically every beer offerred
was in the 8 to 12 percent alcohol range!! Now, mind you, I like a bock or
barleywine every now and then, but I rather had in mind to sit and sip a nice
obscure 4% ABV English ale and taste more beer than alcohol. Budweiser
pulled up the rear (in more ways than one) with a wimpy 5% rating. Many of
the beers' labels indicated that the alcohol level was the main attraction
(lotsa "demon" and "devil" themes, and words like "strong" tossed in).
What's up with this? Aside from the conclusion that Italians drink beer to
get hammered (which I don't think is the case), why couldn't I find more than
a scant few "normal" beers? Why so many PowerBrews? Is there some legal or
tax issue here that favors stronger beers? Just curious. Kinda bolsters one
of my German friends' answer to my question, "what's the best beer to try
while we're in Italy" -- he said, "wine".
By the way, you Italians (and our Greek hosts as well) have stewardship of
some of mankind's most treasured artistic and cultural achievements -- take
good care of them so we can come back and see them again!!
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 97 17:31:29 PST
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Fw: The Jethro Gump Report..Brewery Legalities
The Jethro Gump Report
> >From: Bruce Baker <Bruce.E.Baker@tsy.treasury.govt.nz>
> >Subject: Credentials and standards
> >A lot of us can probably imagine ourselves as proprietors of
> micro-breweries or
> >brew-pubs. What kind of credentials are necessary (if any) to be a
> brew-master
> >of such an establishment, and what kind of legal standards are there (if
> any)
> >with regard to the beer served? I'm thinking of US Federal and state
law.
>
> >Some states regulate maximum alcohol content in beers. Are there other
> >regulations?
The most comprehensive list of laws affecting US brewers is in the "Modern
Brewery Age Blue Book." I have yet to see one, for they cost around $ 300
US. The "Brewers Resource Directory," from the
Institute for Brewing Studie" is quite good, with most of the essential
info, for about $ 80 US, I think. Federal details may be obtained from
the BATF, Washington, DC, 20226.
FWIW, the best place for US brewers to start is the Institute for
Brewing Studies. They have been enormously helpful to me and the Little
Apple. Currently, I am working on a legislative change concerning beer for
festivals, and they have greatly aided me. Members of the IBS can also post
on the IBS Forum, and get more direct info from brewers who are up and
running. (We also get to vote for Board Members.)
Jethro 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: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:53:46 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Little Apple and BT
I'm way behind on the HBD but the latest Brewing Techniques magazine
had a very interesting profile on Little Apple Brewery and Brewmaster
Rob Moline. Its a very good read, and the handsome dapper pictures of
the "Jethro Gump" behind the bar are worth the price. Unfortunately Rob
Jr wasn't pictured. Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
PS How again did the clogged heat exchanger lead to infections?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:49:08 -0000
From: Graham Stone <gstone@dtuk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Dropping vs Secondary Fermentation
Second posting - Any takers?
Bruce DeBolt writes re. Dropping question, again
>Has anyone dropped half of their fermenting wort, left the rest behind
>and then compared the two after bottling?
Sorry, no I haven't. But I would like to open this dropping thread a
little. My understanding is that the process of dropping involves
transferring fermenting wort from the primary fermenter to a second vessel
very shortly after it starts to krausen - a one or two days after start?
The reason for doing this is to leave behind trub etc. that gets floated
up with the krausen and trub that sediments to the bottom of the fermenter.
Once in the second fermenter, the wort is very much cleaner and still
contains very actively working yeast.
Now, there is another practice which sometimes accompanies this process.
Sometimes the wort is allowed to be aerated as it's transferred to the
second fermenter. The purpose of this is to encourage yeast growth in the
second fermenter presumably to ensure that the wort develops another
protective layer of yeast on the surface.
A similar end result to the practise of dropping is attempted by skimming
the yeast head off the wort as soon as it appears. However, I have never
managed to removed all the nasty looking stuff from the yeast head and this
still doesn't get over the removal of the wort from the sedimented trub.
It also doesn't address the option of aerating. My local brewery skims
the head as soon as it appears and at the same time "rouses" the yeast
presumably in an attempt to encourage yeast activity and or growth.
I've deliberately not used the term secondary fermentation here. My
understanding is that when one adopts the practise of allowing fermentation
activity to continue until the yeast head starts to subside before
transferring to another vessel, this is what is referred to as primary and
secondary fermentation (the secondary taking place in the second
container). The only other alternative (practised by AlK amongst others I
believe) is to let the fermentation continue to a finish in the same single
container.
Is it not true therefore, that the only difference between dropping and
using secondary fermentation is when you do the transferring? Or is it
still permissible to use a third container for doing secondary fermentation
with wort that has been dropped? Or is this Tertiary fermentation?
Answers on a post card to....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:05:25 +0000
From: khuri1018@worldnet.att.net
Subject: lists
lists
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 06:22:09 EST
From: "DAVID T. PETERS GERMANY(UTC +01:00)" <d_peters@e-mail.com>
Subject: Trip
I am planning a trip to London and Brussels in the near future. I would
appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction for details on
where to hook up with brewery tours in these areas or send me your personal
recommendations.
TIA.
REGARDS, DAVID T. PETERS E-MAIL: d_peters@e-mail.com
FORD OF GERMANY
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 06:31:54 -0800
From: John Sullivan <sullvan@anet-stl.com>
Subject: Re: Flaming / Yow Yowing / Pissing and Moaning
Ray Estrella writes (regarding trivial info and flaming):
>There was the occasional flame-fest, and plenty of long running
>technical threads about things that did not seem to have any
>thing to do with homebrew.
and then finishes his paragraph responding to Elvis with:
>And let us have the privilege of making our own decisions
>about what we read on the HBD.
Hear! Hear! I am sick to death of those who always try to take the
moral high ground on the HBD and other lists. Read or don't read.
It is your choice alone. One good thing about flame wars is that
you learn a little bit more about the posters themselves, the Als and
the Daves. Its nice to know when you post whether you are responding
to a pompous ass, a vindictive spiteful weenie, a gentleman or
whatever. So keep those flamewars going! By the way, on a related
subject, where does "wasted bandwitdth" go?
Then Keith Royster jumps into the fray, admonishing Al and Dave:
>Dave & Al, please consider this a friendly constructive
>criticism, and definitely not flame. Most of us on the HBD
>really do recognize you as having a lot of knowledge to share
>about homebrewing. But please just keep it more succinct
>and preferable offline until it's time to post a summary.
>Even if the summary says we addree to disagree based on these
>points.
Keith: Please accept this as friendly constructive criticsim.
Let people post what they want. You and others posting about
"stopping the yow yowing" and "wasting bandwidth", do not speak
for all of us using this service. You are not going to change
anyone. Rather than bitching about what is posted and how it is
posted, I would suggest that we all just let everyone post as they
wish. Then we (I) have a choice of reading or responding as we wish.
I will cede the moral high ground to all of you. It is yours for
the taking.
John Sullivan
St. Louis, MO
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:18:47 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com>
Subject: Dangers of flying
Good morning all,
>>>Al K said:
Should my plane crash, might I suggest that Bill Giffin and Scott
Dornseif should top the suspect list...
<<<
I assure you that it would have to be Scott because if Al's plane went
down who would I have to use as a straight man? Who would answer
all the stupid questions? Life would be too dull without Al K.
Al isn't it nice to know that Mg can be bitter, Check Jim B's post. Isn't
that what I said. So much for a little MgSO4 in a glass of water.
What follow is Al K's sense of the absurdities of life.
>My *guess* (purely *speculation*) for getting a feel for
>an 18-th century Porter, might be to mix a strong brown
>beer (because back then, they brewed 'em much stronger),
>with a sour beer (that's the stale (or "aged" in modern
>terms) part), and a woody beer (for the long aging in
>wood).
>
>How about this:
>
>60% Old Peculier or McEwan's Scotch Ale
>10% Cantillon or Boon Gueuze/Geuze
>30% Rodenbach Grand Cru
>
>Yes, the Rodenbach is sour, but I suspect not sour enough and note
>that the Cantillon or Boon would also add a horsey character which
>would not be out-of-place in a Porter.
>
>Comments? Different proportions? Different beers?
>
Who in their right minds would waste the above beers to create a beer
that rightfully went extinct.
See what I mean who would want to lose Al when you can still get
such wonderful insight into the art of wasting good beer trying to make
an old porter.
Blending Rodenbach Grand Cru with anything is a sin in the sight of
God.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:58:50 -0600
From: "Robert DeNeefe" <rdeneefe@compassnet.com>
Subject: vigorous evaporation
This weekend I started my boil outside on a propane cooker with ~6.5
gallons of wort. 90 minutes later I ended up with significantly < 4
gallons. This is an evaporation rate of a little less than 1 gallon per
half hour! This seems awfully high compared to what I've read in homebrew
books and here on the digest. I realize that a vigorous boil is good for
things like hop utilization and hot break formation, but is such a violent
boil really necessary or is a rolling boil that moves things around good
enough? This may seem like a silly question, but I have my reasons for
not "wasting" water to evaporation if I don't have to. For one, my tap
water is basically unfit for brewing (smells like chlorine half the time
and is extremely hard) so I have to get water from other sources.
Secondly, concentrating my wort so much makes the wort left in the brewpot
(always a sad site to see wort who's potential will never be reached) all
the more precious, along with rasing the likelihood of unwanted
caramelization/darkening and the like. So, all you propane spewing
homebrewers out there, do you boil like mad and get a high evaporation
rate, or do you "tone down" the boil and still get nice utilization/hot
break? Is there a point of "enough is enough" in the boil? I know I
could experiment with a few brews and different boil vigorosities (take
that, Mr. Webster!), but as I only brew once a month I'd rather poll the
homebrew collective and see what bits of wisdom I can get first. And
anway, its been a while since I asked a question. :)
Robert
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:11:02 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Counterflow chiller and trub removal / warming beer
Hi all,
There have been a few people asking about cold break removal,
especially when using counterflow chillers. I find that this is one
of the disadvantages of CF chillers; complete trub removal by
whirlpooling is more easily done when using an immersion chiller.
I have had good results removing cold break by using a trub sack. I
use small cotton bags (homemade). I boil a bag, stuff it inside the
neck of the fermenter, and run the wort from the chiller through it.
I have to run the wort slowly (~12 gallons/hour) to avoid overflow,
but it will catch the cold break.
I have tried using other materials, such as hop bags and cheesecloth,
but they were way too coarse. Cotton T-shirts work well. I never use
soap or detergents to clean trub sacks.
----------------------
Tim wrote in asking about microwaving beer to warm it to serving
temperature. A far easier, and probably faster method, is to place
the unopened bottle of beer into a small container of hot water.
Count to 10. If you used really hot water, it will be at ~55F.
It is very easy to over-warm the beer this way, but with a little
experience you will be serving all your of bottled nectar at
appropriate temperatures.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:19:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Steven Ketcham <ketcham@earthlink.net>
Subject: Superior Brewing Co. Ontario Canada
Does anyone have an address or telephone number for Superior Brewing Co.
Ontario Canada?
I am trying to track down spec.s on their dry lager yeast.
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1997 07:24:32 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen@axel.vigra.com>
Subject: Re: building a RIMS heating chamber
>> Keith Royster writes:
KR> Point is, even making the chamber larger and if you always turn
KR> the element off before the pump, you will still have a soft fuzzy
KR> tan colored residue on your element after every batch. I haven't
KR> obvserved this, but it has been confirmed through some of my
KR> discussions with Dion Hollenbeck. If left alone, it will
KR> eventually begin to slow your heat transfer efficiency and may
KR> even become black carbonized crude like mine. Moral of the story
KR> is that you should build your heating chamber so that the element
KR> is easily accessible to be removed and cleaned periodically.
I will go one further. You had better make it easy enough so that you
can take it apart after EVERY brew and clean it. While still hot, a
nylon kitchen brush and hot water will get this tan crud off very
easily. Left to dry it will eventually turn to the black carbonized
crud. And if it does not dry between brews, it can even rot on you.
This is how I discovered that the elements need to be cleaned after
every brew. God, what a stench!! Hope to save someone else the
experience of finding this out the hard way.
Rant mode on. **************
OK, now to one of my pet peeves. Sorry to Mike Szwaya, I am not
picking on you personally, but I just gotta say this.
I cannot understand why some people take really critical parts of a
RIMS design and try to make them "on the cheap". A plastic heater
chamber is an extreme example of this. Combining a heat source with
plastic and water is a disaster waiting to happen. A simple error
like running the chamber dry, or turning off the pump can result in a
meltdown and very likely dump liquid and now you have a liquid and
electricity danger. And you have a high likelihood of electrocuting
yourself. Did you possibly scrimp and not buy a GFCI to protect
yourself? This is pennywise and poundfoolish thinking.
Rant mode off. **************
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: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:47:32 -0500
From: oliver@triton.cms.udel.edu (Oliver Weatherbee)
Subject: Re: Counterflow chiller, cold brewak
Rob Kienle wrote in part:
> The most important thing about cold break is
>"creating" it (which the counterflow chiller will do far more
>effectively than the immersion), so that at some point it can be
>separated from the rest of the beer. The importance of "when" to
>separate it varies (see below). I think the option of recirculating
>cooled wort back into your brewpot is probably a little too hazardous
>from a bacteriologic (sp?) point of view and will also take so long that
>the benefits of using a CF will be lost.
First all discussion on this thread is supposition, yours and mine,
because I don't know anyone who has tried this. I hope to borrow a
cf chiller and test it out, however until then you and I will be
debating opinions. Mine being that recirculating the wort back into
the kettle will give a cooling rate much faster than an immersion
chiller (without the need for physical agitation and its associated
danger of HSA) but not as fast as the straight cf chiller.
In terms of cold break formation, according to my current limited
understanding, you will get the same amount of break material
recirculating back into the kettle or straight into the fermenter.
As far as I know (and I am certainly willing to be re-educated), since
I am not talking about reboiling the wort, we can treat the cold
break as "BOOPs" (Break Only Once Proteins). The coagulated proteins
which fall out of solution in the cf chiller will not significantly
redissolve once returned to the warmer wort. Just as Hot Break doesn't
redissolve after chilling. (chemists please excuse my mixed and
probably improper use of "dissolve" for proteins in solution).
I don't really understand your statement concerning the "bacteriologic
hazard" unless perhaps your assuming that a slower cooling of the wort
provides a greater chance for thermophilic bacteria to take up shop. In
which case I would say that the chance is less than it would be with an
immersion chiller. I really don't think that the rate of chilling would
be that much less, maybe on the order of 5 minutes for a 5 gallon batch.
And an added 5 minute chilling on brew day seems a much better AND safer
option than syphoning wort to a temporary fermenter and then syphoning
again to get it off the settled break material.
With leaf hops providing a filter bed, this would allow for the prevention
of carry-over of MOST break material. Obviously some would be transferred
to the fermenter and thats fine, I want some for yeast metabolism and
nucleation points for CO2 release. I don't want too much because of the
POTENTIAL (all caps because I recognize that this is an unsettled issue)
of its adverse impact on clarity(?), stability(?), off-tastes(?) etc. Also
by decreasing the amount of trub in the primary, I am decreasing the amount
of beer I lose when syphoning.
_______________________________________________________________
Oliver Weatherbee oliver@triton.cms.udel.edu
First State Brewers
http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/
_______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:04:46 -0600
From: "Jeff Spencer" <spence@eai.com>
Subject: Re: Late starting Wyeast
>Two weeks ago I prepared a package of Wyeast yeast by flattening the package
an
>d mixing the contents. This was two days before I intended to brew up a batch
>of ale. Nothing happened ( at least visibly) inside the yeast package for
three
> days; I finally pitched dry yeast in my wort. Five days after crushing the
pac
>kage things started to happen. The fully expanded foil pack has been residing
i
>n my fridge for the last week and a half. Question:IfI plan to brew this weeke
>nd, can this yeast still be used?
As long as you make a starter, it will probably be ok. You might want to give
it an extra day to get going though.
Check the date stamped on the foil package. WYeast that is only a month or so
old can puff up in a day or two. If it is several months (3-4) old it can take
a while. I believe WYeast has a shelf life of at least 4 months if
refrigerated.
-spence
- --
***** Jeff Spencer <spence@eai.com>
***** CorpComm Project Manager
***** Engineering Animation --> http://www.eai.com
***** - .-. ..- ... - -. --- --- -. .
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:12:26 -0500 (EST)
From: HOMEBRE973@aol.com
Subject: BIERRE DE GARDE
I am trying to find a recipe that is close to "Tres Monts" by the St.
Sylvestre brewery in the Flanders area of France. I posted this many months
ago, but never found anyone who made a beer that came out like Tres Monts.
I do have Wheeler and Protz recipe from "Brew Classic European Beers at
Home" but I do not know if they ever made the beer. So my questions are:
What yeast would one use?
Can you culture yeast from a bottle of "Tres Monts" and if so is it the yeast
used for fermentation?
Does anyone have an all grain proven recipe for this style without the banana
esters so common in many beers using Belgian yeasts?
TIA,
Andy Kligerman
Hillsborough, NC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:09:14 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Idophor and stainless steel
Does idophor attack stainless steel after long exposure ? Can I store
idophor in a 5 gallon corny keg for months or should I just sanitize,
drain and air dry ?
Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 97 10:12:24 PST
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Craft Beer Institute Seminar
The Jethro Gump Report
CBI Recipe Formulation Seminar.
Attended the Craft Beer Institute Seminar on Recipe Formulation in Kansas
City yesterday, led by Ray Daniels. Highly recommended as is Ray's book,
Designing Great Beers. If you get a chance to attend, make the time...cost
49 $US. The book cost 20 $US at the seminar, don't know what it goes for
elsewhere. I think he will also be doing one at the Craft Brewers
Convention in Seattle. ( Also got to meet Jackie Rager...nice to put a face
to the theorists, huh!) Was quite pleased to see that even a beer
distributor was in attendance!
Jethro (Learning New Ways to Think About Beer) 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: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:52:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Rae Christopher J <3cjr7@qlink.queensu.ca>
Subject: re: brian deck: yeast culture...(February 22, 1997)
i'm not sure, but from my memory of microbiology courses, what may be
happening is that by starting your yeast in a non-simple sugar medium
you may be activating late-phase enzymes early, and de-activating
early-phase enzymes. bear in mind that there is _no_ way to 100%
sterilize anything (spores, for instance, resist chlorine and temperatures
up to ~120 C (~240F)). what this means is that instead of quickly getting
a high alcohol content (inhibiting nasty bacteria/fungi) and then slowly
breaking down other molecules (the mellowing process), you are instead
taking 24h to re-start the alcoholization, during which time spores can
"hatch" and start to skunk your beer. meanwhile the yeast will begin to
produce alcohol, quickly inhibiting further growth of the nasties. net
result is an off flavour, as opposed to a full skunk.
the only problem with this explanation is it does not account for why your
earlier batches were OK.
this is just a thought, not a stone-set truth. if no-one else has a
better explanation, try just using a simple sugar starter medium with your
next batch and seeing what happens.
___________________________________________________________
This is Chris' signature:
C____ R__
&%
His home page is at http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjr7/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:42:56 +0000
From: benbowj@ava.bcc.orst.edu
Subject: yeast culture conditions...
In HBD #2355 Brian Deck wrote about problems with possible
contamination or yeast mutation:
> My problem is, apparently, contamination. There is a terrible
>"winey" taste in my last two batches, and they are <WAY>
>over-carbonated,
One of his hypotheses as to what may be wrong:
>... or #2: my yeast, specifically brewers yeasts that we all
>know and love, were never meant to be treated like laboratory
>yeasts, and they are somehow losing their "good" properties?
>NOTE: I culture them bothin liquid culture (including my starter)
>and on solid agar plates here in the lab using a yeast propigation
>medium called YPD. It consists of 1%yeast extract and
>2% bacto-peptone (both common laboratory media ingredients),
>and 2% glucose. That is all; it's very bare-bones stuff.
>Could the lovely brewers' yeasts be getting "sick" in this media,
>somehow becoming no longer capable of making my wort taste like
>beer?
I work in a lab also and have started culturing my own brewing yeast.
I havn't had any problems yet, but I havn't been doing it for too long
either. I do have one suggestion though. If the problem is, as you
suggest it might be, a change in the yeasts ability to ferment
"correctly", it may be due to the medium it is being propagated in.
If it's being grown generation after generation on peptone and
glucose, it might lose it's preference or it's ability to ferment
maltose. I suggest adding some malt extract to your propagation
medium. In my work I use YMDA (yeast malt dextrose agar) to propagate
yeast (for work(not yeast you would want to brew with), as well as for my
own brewing). The recipe is 3 g yeast extract, 3 g malt extract, 5 g peptone,
5 g dextrose (corn sugar), and 18 g agar per liter. You can make a broth with
the same recipe, minus the agar.
However, I think that selection should only be a problem if you are
indeed growing generation after generation on non-malt medium. If
you're only propagating them once or twice before using them, and are
recovering them from the fermenter to replenish your supply, it
shouldn't be a problem (IMHO). I think that they would need several
generations of exposure to other nutrients for selection to occur.
Anyways, writing this now made me think that maybe I'll start using
only malt extract as a nutrient source for my brewing yeasts, to
prevent any type of selection toward other nutrient preferences.
Hope this is helpful
Jesse Benbow
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:02:18 -0800
From: RANDY ERICKSON <RANDYE@mid.org>
Subject: Subject: AHA/AOB: the $100,000 Question
I don't think I understand this AHA thing.
I work for a public agency (water/electric utility). We are governed by a
Board of Directors (elected by customers/registered voters) and run by
a general manager appointed by, and accountable to, the board.
I own some stock in a private corporation. That company is also
governed by a board (elected by shareholders) and run by an
accountable CEO.
The professional association I belong to and hell, even my hombrew club,
are run by _elected_ officers.
The AHA on the other hand is run by a self-appointed president who
supposedly answers to a Board of Directors. I do know that as a
member, I never had any say in the make-up of this board. Since the
AHA doesn't see fit to disclose just how this board is made up, we'll
have to assume that they are invited to serve by Charlie or his staff.
And that takes just about all of the wind out of the AHA's assertion that
the president serves only at the pleasure of the board.
I can't seem to think of any type of body that operates under this model.
It seems that for all of the efforts of the AHA to convince us that they are
legit, all they ultimately understand is the almighty buck. And that, after
all, is the only vote that we have. Don't pay the "dues", don't buy the
merchandize, don't buy the books or the magazine, until we're convinced
that our "membership" has some meaning. Maybe then the AHA can be
the type of organization its officers think it is.
Randy in Modesto
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:27:18 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Re: Composition of extract from steeped versus mashed grains
Brian writes:
>Looking for information or scientific info on the relative
>compositions of the extract gained from specialty grains and
>malts (crystals, brown, chocolate, black barley, black patent,
>roasted barley etc. etc.). I want to compare the composition of
>the extract gained by mashing the specialty grains and malts with
>the base malt(s) to the extract gained by steeping them in
>untreated water at 150-160 F.
I believe that in terms of "extract," i.e. SG points, it will be
pretty similar except for the very pale (colour < ~5L) crystal malts.
Regarding the fermentabilty, I believe that if you are mashing at
the cooler end of the range (i.e. 150-ish F), I believe that you get
a *slightly* more fermentable wort if you mash rather than steeping
because of the activity of beta amylase on the dextrins in the crystal
malts. I say "slightly" above because in my experience, I have reason
that not all of the unfermentables in crystal malts are able to be
broken down by beta amylase. This is pretty much speculation, on my
part, however, since I have not done side-by-side comparisons.
>If you want to get very particular, then the question to answer is,
>can I get away with mashing only the base malts and then steeping
>the specialty grains and malts?
Yes, except for the vary pale crystal malts and "specialty grains"
that contain starch (i.e. if you consider flaked barley a "specialty
grain") you can certainly do what you propose and many homebrewers
have done this (no comercial brewers that I know of, however).
> The technique would be to calculate,
>using your known extract efficiency, the expected contribution to
>the SG in a mash. Then, knowing your extract efficiency for
>steeped grains, increase the amount of specialty grains and malts
>to derive the same contribution to SG in the wort. Or is it your
>opinion that even though the SG contribution was the same for each
>of the specialty grains and malts, that due to a different composition
>of the extracts (balance of the various components), the wort
>would not turn out to be the same after all?
As I said before, the fermentabilty would be slightly different if
you were mashing at the cool end of the amylase range, but it would
not make *radically* different beer, if that's what you are asking.
Back in 1988 or 1989, I asked Dr. George Fix about this exact point
(more specifically, I asked if mashing crystal would break down
a lot of the dextrins we typically seek from crystal malts)... his
response was that he uses the crystal malts for their flavour contribution
and that he controls fermentability (i.e dextrin content) of the resulting
wort by choosing appropriate mash temperatures, so he adds all the malts
together at the beginning of the mash.
In my own brewing, I too have always done this.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:45:04 -0500
From: "Herb B Tuten" <herb@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us>
Subject: co2 pressure in primary
Greetings all,
I often use a blow-off setup in beginning fermentation
and noticed something interesting last week. After the
lag phase I could regulate how much bubbling, if any,
occurred by raising or lowering the tube end inside the
blow-off container. I assume this is due to the amount
of water pressure in contrast to the co2 pressure coming
from the fermenter. Of course, when fermentation really
got going, it didn't appear to make alot of difference. (I never
got around to switching to an airlock.) Then, a few days later
I could control the bubbling again. It seems that the gas in
the tubing pushes to point X in relation to the depth of the
blowoff water. The question that I could not answer was this:
Is it better to raise the end of the tubing to allow gases to
escape and minimize pressure in the fermenter, or is it
better to lower the tubing end and prevent bubbling to
keep the gases in the fermenter, or does it matter at all ???
Yes, I know that switching to an airlock would prevent the
question from coming up at all. I thought this might be an
interesting topic for discussion: maximum pressure inside
fermenter vs. minimum pressure inside fermenter.
Visit the Winston-Salem Wort Hawgs at
http://freenet.co.forsyth.nc.us/WSWH
Cheers,
Herb
herb@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:15:19 -0600
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com
Subject: Recipe exchange
I just tried an IPA a made using a cat's meow recipe named "sister
star of the sun". It turned out very well in spite of low
temperatures during mash and fermentation. That is another story.
Anyway, I would highly recommend trying this. If you don't have a
browser, I can email you a copy. I substituted 1 pound of mild malt
for one pound of pale, but otherwise followed exactly.
Now I have a need for a good Milk stout or sweet oatmeal stout recipe.
private email would be fine. I want to make it for a friend who likes
stout, is expecting twins in 6 weeks, and has been abstaining during
pregnancy. I am not a big fan of dry stouts, so the sweeter the
better. All-grain preferred! Comments and anecdotes always
appreciated.
TIA
Lou
<lheavner@frmail.frco.com>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:29:31 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Re: Skunkiness
Dave writes:
>Also our
>friend in Grapevine Tx agrees with Jay in that both brew on the patio in bright
>light and never get skunking.
I've found a reference that may explain why skunking may be less of a point
during brewing:
"Since malt, adjuncts, and hops all contain volatile mercaptans, it is not
suprising to find that brewers' wort also has measureable amounts of these
compounds. The few samples of wort analyzed had mercaptan levels that were
rational on the basis of the brewing materials used. The mercaptan level
decreased during fermentation, and increased during primary and secondary
storage." -- "Determination of Volatile Sulfur Compounds IV Further
Notes on Mercaptans" by M.W.Brenner, J.L.Owades, and T. Fazio, A.S.B.C.
Proceedings, 1955.
Note that this is *not* an article on lightstruck beer, although it is
mentioned (and there is a reference to the 1954 Proceedings and says
that "'lightstruck' beer, whose odor was recently shown to be due to
mercaptans."), but rather an article on mercaptan formation and reduction
in "non-irradiated" beer (the authors' expression).
My point is, however, that perhaps yeast activity during fermentation
will reduce light-induced mercaptans (during the boil, runoff, etc) as
well, no?
>I can explain all these results to my satisfaction if what is happening is a
>surface photolysis on the surface of the beer in the glass or mug. There is no
>glass in the way to absorb UV or other light. There is a high concentration of
>photosylates directly under the drinker's nose ( even though the actual amount
>may be small) and it can even work with dark beers like a porter, since
>penetration into the body of the beer is not necessary. Removal of the beer
>from direct sunlight will allow the minunte amount of prenyl mercaptan to be
>purged or just drift away on the wind.
This doesn't explain my experience with Newcastle Brown Ale or the other
HBD poster's (oops, sorry) experience with Ballentine's.
>Now the test. Take a highly hopped beer in two mugs 1 covered, the other
>exposed to the light. Any difference in the aroma? Switch which mug is covered
Much easier: two bottles of PU (or Heineken... heck... BUD!), taken from a
sealed (and therefore dark) case. One stored dark, the other put on on
sunny window ledge for a day (better do two for the Bud -- brown bottles).
Next, open, pour, sniff... simple.
It probably doesn't take a day... I read in Brewing Science this weekend
that it only takes a few hours in sunlight and a few days under fluorescent
light, but I want to make *darned* sure you smell the difference.
Really, Dave, no offense meant, but... put away the photochemistry texts
and try this experiment. I'm sure we'll agree then. Perhaps try four
bottles (two dark, two sunny, two smelled after a day, two after a month
at 50F in the dark) and kill two birds with one sixpack.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 97 15:22:04 CST
From: "Rene Derieux" <rderieux@dttus.com>
Subject: Stale Beer and Summer Brewing
Hi all!
I would like to know what is a good way for a homebrewer to make
Stale/Sour beer to mix with a Mild for a "real" london porter?
This is my first year as a homebrewer and I have never brewed in the
summer. The temp. can get into the 90s here in Michigan and I really
don't want to spend tons of money cooling my home to 70F or buying a
separate refrigarator. Any suggestions on how to keep the carboys
cool while fermenting?
Thanks,
Rene' Derieux
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:07:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: CO2 recycling/ESBs/AOB
Fredrik writes about CO2 reuse/recycling:
<I just recalled seeing this in a small brewery in Bamberg last summer. The
<CO2 was piped from the conditioning tanks and allowed to bubble through a
<small glass container (<1 liter), and I was of course curious about it. The
<guide said that it was for capturing CO2 for force carbonation.
Actually what you saw was an airlock for a professional brewery. We use
a very similar device at Victory and many other brewers do so as well.
<what kind of liquid there was in the container. Acid of some sort?
Nope, just water. Recycling of CO2 does not become cost effective until
the production reaches about 60K BBLs/yr. That is where the cost reduction
of the price of CO2 starts to recoup the investment in equipment. Small
Bamberg braueries are too small to do this economically. The device you
saw is used to spund the tank when the redidual sugars are low enough
to generate carbonation in the tank. Standard lager/unitank technique.
This technique, BTW, does meet Reinheitsgebot, which merely mandates
that the CO2 be produced from the brewery itself. Spunding meets this
as does using previously saved/recycled CO2 while bottled gas does not
meet this standard.
Charles is on the noble Fullers ESB quest:
< for 10 US Gals:
< 14.00 lb. British two-row pale ale
< 1.50 lb. British Crystal (50-60L)
< 1.50 lb. Cara-Pils Dextrine
< 1.25 lb. Belgian Munich
< 1.00 lb. Flaked corn (maize)
< 1.50 oz. Challenger 7.3% 60 min
< .50 oz. Challenger 7.3% 40 min
< .50 oz. Willamette 4.9% 40 min
< 1.00 oz. Willamette 4.9% 20 min
< 1.00 oz. EK Goldings 5.1% 20 min
< 1.00 oz. EK Goldings in hopback
< Single infusion mash at 154F
< Predicted OG 1054
< Predicted IBU 35
< Pitch with Wyeast 1968 - no other.
Sounds good to me but Id lose the Cara-Pils Dextrine malt. If you
want a light caramel malt, use DC caraVienne but its not needed. The
British ale malt will provide color enough to go with the UK Crystal.
Dont forget to dry hop at 1/4 oz per 5 gals. Also to get the true
taste you are looking for will require cask conditioning and dispense
from beer engine or gravity, this is a real key to the overall effect.
(supre fresh EKGs are key here too)
RE: AOB/AHA. Damn! Twice I wrote to Charlie, once many, many years ago
to ask some of the same questions being covered here so aptly by Louis
et al. Now I find out that not only do they ignore comments/constructive
criticism, they dont even read em!!! Sheesh, talk about non responsive
folks. Im still trying to figure out why the AHA refused to ship the
promised bottles for the AHA conference beer I brewed em until the night
before my one month beer trek across Europe! I cant tell you how close
they came to getting the entire 2 BBLs in kegs... ;-)
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:47:52 -0700
From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
Subject: dirty beer lines
A good friend of mine started a beer distributorship about a year ago and
he now distributes several very tasty micros. He recently purchased a line
cleaning kit so that he can better serve his customers (taverns, liquor
stores). He called me a few weeks ago because he had a problem he couldn't
solve. One of his accounts was complaining about his beer foaming. I went
with him to this account to see if I could help and immediately realized
something sorta fishy.
This account has 8 taps: 2 AB, 1 Coors, 1 Miller, 4 micros. The keg
cooler is set-up with the major domestic beer kegs on one side and the
micros on the other side. The majors had new, shiny hoses, fittings and
taps. The micros all had old, nasty, filthy hoses, fittings and taps.
Now, this lounge owns this equipment, but mysteriously all the old crappy
equipment is hooked up the micro kegs. Call Oliver Stone.... We replaced
the filthy hoses with new ones, after which all the micros served just
fine. The manager of this place is clueless about system maintenance and
cleaning but did point out that the 'beer distributor reps help her keep
the system maintained'. These 'reps' are employees of AB, Coors and
Miller. Thankfully my friend is now also involved in maintaining the
system.
jeff
casper, wy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:42:36 -0500 (EST)
From: nkanous@tir.com (nkanous)
Subject: Conspiracies
Name that tune..."For What It's Worth", Buffalo Springfield. Great tune!
Nathan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:27:02 -0800
From: keithzim@tgn.net
Subject: Scottish Ales
Looking for some good recipies for a Scottish Ale. Am in interested in
both extract and all grain.
can send to keithzim@tgn.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2359, 02/26/97
*************************************
-------
